THE BEST F-16 demo ive ever seen so far, I dont think the plane is outdated yet. *edit* watch in high quality

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VND2P2GjG8

BoCfuss

11-13-2008, 09:27 PM

That was awesome, it is amazing how many hours some pilots have in the F-16. That pilot just looked good, not sure if he is or not but he just looked routine doing things that are not.

wayno7777

11-13-2008, 11:20 PM

And a special 'Viper'
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/wayno77/FB%20shots/Aircraft/SpecialF-16_a.jpg

tagTaken2

11-14-2008, 02:00 AM

Don't really care for that one... looks like it has tuckshop lady arms.

waffen-79

11-14-2008, 10:13 AM

Nothing against american "contemporary" warbirds, in fact I just admire(hugefan) most of them i.e: f-111,f-14,f-15,f-18,f-4,f-5,a-10,a-6,b-1b,f-86 (you get the idear) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

but the f-16 with that sidemounted-joke its geeh http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

SeaFireLIV

11-14-2008, 10:42 AM

He seemed to be enjoying himself so much there that I was half expecting him to fire his missiles off randomly!

HayateAce

11-14-2008, 11:45 AM

Now THAT is one proper looking and handling fighter aircraft. Long service life too.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.globalaircraft.org/photos/planephotos/f-16-4.jpg

Heliopause

11-15-2008, 04:28 AM

Looks great http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

This is a Dutch demo at Nellis AFB:
Aviation Nation 2008 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk7pzZuid-w&feature=channel)

One thing that occurs to me though. None of these aircraft have ever been truly tested in battlefield conditions. I mean in a proper dogfight with comparable aircraft.

Until then we have no idea how well they`d really do. They may suck bigtime for all we know.

Bremspropeller

12-03-2008, 07:20 AM

Oh, F-16s flew about 13,500 sorties during Desert Storm, they're still going strong in Iraq and Afghanistan, flying CAP and CAS missions every day.
They flew sorties during Allied Force and other crisisses/ wars.

And F-16s amassed more than 80 kills - at ZERO (official) losses.
Aircraft killed include MiG-29s.

SeaFireLIV

12-03-2008, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Oh, F-16s flew about 13,500 sorties during Desert Storm, they're still going strong in Iraq and Afghanistan, flying CAP and CAS missions every day.
They flew sorties during Allied Force and other crisisses/ wars.

And F-16s amassed more than 80 kills - at ZERO (official) losses.
Aircraft killed include MiG-29s.

You know what I mean, Bremspropeller.

All those sorties were against enemies that had extremely limited means and abilities. For example, outdated hardware (or none) or overwhelmed by superior numbers.

I`m talking about real engagagements with numbers almost equalling eachother against an opponent with similar resources.

These modern aircraft haven`t been truly tested. Not that I want them to be cos if they were we`d probably be at war with Russia. Which would be bad for all, but hypothetically, it would`ve been interesting to see how these aircraft would`ve really done in a full on engagement with equal opposing sides.

Bremspropeller

12-03-2008, 08:10 AM

Yeah, I see what you mean.

Well, let's put it this way:

The F-16 was built to break the circle of increasing costs and the resulting lower number of fighters.
The F-15 was and is a highly capable aircraft.
But it's still vulnerable against SAM and fighters - especially in furballs with many engaged fighters.

Shoot down a few of the already few "high tech" fighters and you can run your enemy out of buissnes.

The idea was building many light, less capable fighters that could be used as day-fighters and day fighter-bombers.

Voilą!

The initial thought was designing a "throw away" fighter - in case the Cold War should run hot.
The Soviets had pretty much the same thing with their tactical fighter-fleet (albeit somewhat less capable).

The F-16 matured and now offers a lot more "bang for the buck" than most other fighters.
It emerged as a "Jack of all trades, master of none".

To get you an impression of what a "hot" Cold War scenario looked like:
About 2,000 (!!) nuclear warheads were planned to be shot onto east-german territory alone.
Luftwaffe F-104G missions, delivering "the bomb" to a place somewhere in Poland or western Russia were considered "one way" missions with only 40% of aircraft returning AT BEST!
By then about any european NATO airfield would have been little more than smoking ashes.

The whole european "front" was totally SAMed up.
Even a non-nuclear war would have emerged into a turkey-shooting for both sides.
The SEAD-escorts that were avalianble would NEVER have beeen able to take down sufficient SAM-sites in order to clear in- and outbound paths for entire strike-packages.

That is a reason why they built the Tornado.
It was to fly in small numbers at LOW altitude (automaticly, if reqquired) at all possible kinds of weather and interdict/ strike enemy installations far behind the front.
That was with both, "instant sunshine" and conventional arms.

Airmail109

12-03-2008, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Yeah, I see what you mean.

Well, let's put it this way:

The F-16 was built to break the circle of increasing costs and the resulting lower number of fighters.
The F-15 was and is a highly capable aircraft.
But it's still vulnerable against SAM and fighters - especially in furballs with many engaged fighters.

Shoot down a few of the already few "high tech" fighters and you can run your enemy out of buissnes.

The idea was building many light, less capable fighters that could be used as day-fighters and day fighter-bombers.

Voilą!

The initial thought was designing a "throw away" fighter - in case the Cold War should run hot.
The Soviets had pretty much the same thing with their tactical fighter-fleet (albeit somewhat less capable).

The F-16 matured and now offers a lot more "bang for the buck" than most other fighters.
It emerged as a "Jack of all trades, master of none".

To get you an impression of what a "hot" Cold War scenario looked like:
About 2,000 (!!) nuclear warheads were planned to be shot onto east-german territory alone.
Luftwaffe F-104G missions, delivering "the bomb" to a place somewhere in Poland or western Russia were considered "one way" missions with only 40% of aircraft returning AT BEST!
By then about any european NATO airfield would have been little more than smoking ashes.

The whole european "front" was totally SAMed up.
Even a non-nuclear war would have emerged into a turkey-shooting for both sides.
The SEAD-escorts that were avalianble would NEVER have beeen able to take down sufficient SAM-sites in order to clear in- and outbound paths for entire strike-packages.

That is a reason why they built the Tornado.
It was to fly in small numbers at LOW altitude (automaticly, if reqquired) at all possible kinds of weather and interdict/ strike enemy installations far behind the front.
That was with both, "instant sunshine" and conventional arms.

And thats why I hate politicians, what kind of human plans for chucking 2000 nukes into a smallish country.

raaaid

12-03-2008, 09:17 AM

f16 is my favourite plane, wasnt it in top gun?

HayateAce

12-03-2008, 10:19 AM

http://www.dabbledoo.com/ee/images/uploads/gamertell/top_gun_tom.jpg

SeaFireLIV

12-03-2008, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by raaaid:
f16 is my favourite plane, wasnt it in top gun?

nO.

Bremspropeller

12-03-2008, 10:58 AM

Well, they were not in the film, but technically, the Navy had and now again has F-16s for adversary training.

Cajun76

12-03-2008, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by raaaid:
f16 is my favourite plane, wasnt it in top gun?

Yes, the twin engine, two vertical rudder version only used by VF-103 "Jolly Rogers", assigned to CVN 73 USS George Washington, modified with cameras at 2 million dollars apiece for the 1986 film.

"Maverick" was actually represented an updated biography of John McCain. Great film.

Schwarz.13

12-04-2008, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by tagTaken2:
Anyone else think that the F-2 has the slight edge in looks?

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_F-2s_lg.jpg

Actually i would be inclined to agree - if it weren't for the 3-piece canopy which replaces the famous F-16 'bubble' canopy.

However the F-2 is 25% larger than an F-16A and i would far rather equip my country with the smaller, latest edition of the F-16 (Block 50+/52+) as Poland has done.

Poland (along with the United Arab Emirates) now has some of the most-advanced, best-equipped Vipers in the world and, contrary to what some people might think, they are the latest/brand-new F-16s and NOT 2nd-hand ex-USAF hardware - while the USAF may have stopped purchasing F-16s, Lockheed Martin continue to develop/manufacture the F-16 for export customers...
BTW the conformal fuel tanks which are supplied with some of the latest Vipers are just yuck!!! http://forums.eagle.ru/images/smilies/puke.gif

if it weren't for the 3-piece canopy which replaces the famous F-16 'bubble' canopy.

The three-piece canopy is lighter (structure-wise and it requires smaller actuators) and therefore largely offsets the view-disadvantage. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

tagTaken2

12-05-2008, 01:02 AM

Originally posted by Schwarz.13:

Actually i would be inclined to agree - if it weren't for the 3-piece canopy which replaces the famous F-16 'bubble' canopy.

That's kind of what I like about it. Gives a more angular predatory look to the front bit http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Incidentally, I have tested the Viper extensively in Falcon 4.0, and it performs very poorly against even 60s era aircraft. It's hard to say how it would do against Su-27, or Mig 29, I've never survived long enough to find out.

Sharpe26

12-05-2008, 02:40 AM

That seems kind of weird,tagtaken2. Although Thirdwires Wings Over Israel also has the F16, (the early one that is)I can easily outturn and outfight Mig 21s with it.

Sim dependant flight models..... very odd.

Schwarz.13

12-05-2008, 05:40 AM

Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
The most advanced Viper is the Block 60 of the UAE.

From what i gather, the main difference between the Sufa and the latest "normal" Block 50/52+ is that much of the US avionics have been replaced by Israeli-built avionics.

As for the Block 60, with it's uprated engine and special everything - well what can i say, those Arab Princes and their more-expensive 'toys' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

With regard to the Polish Vipers:

<span class="ev_code_yellow">"Poland ordered a total of 48 F-16C/D Block 52 aircraft, thus becoming the first former WarPac member to operate the F-16 Fighting Falcon.

Equiped with JHMCS and Sniper ER pods, and armed with AIM-9X, AIM-120C, JSOW and JDAM, the Polish F-16s will be the most advanced in NATO.</span> (www.f-16.net)

Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
The three-piece canopy is lighter (structure-wise and it requires smaller actuators) and therefore largely offsets the view-disadvantage. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Originally posted by tagTaken2:
Incidentally, I have tested the Viper extensively in Falcon 4.0, and it performs very poorly against even 60s era aircraft. It's hard to say how it would do against Su-27, or Mig 29, I've never survived long enough to find out.

Really?! I was thinking of buying Falcon 4.0 Allied Force (yes i'm aware of how hardcore a simulation it is).

Can you be more specific about your 'extensive tests'? and are your 60s-era aircraft human-controlled or AI?

I've read nothing but good things about Falcon 4.0 (apart from it's dated graphics) so i would be interested to here some opinions here...

tagTaken2

12-05-2008, 06:10 AM

Originally posted by Schwarz.13:

Can you be more specific about your 'extensive tests'? and are your 60s-era aircraft human-controlled or AI?

I've read nothing but good things about Falcon 4.0 (apart from it's dated graphics) so i would be interested to here some opinions here...

Actually, I was just indicating that I'm a terrible pilot http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

I've been flying Falcon 4.0 + RV. I believe the AI is reasonable, but I'm focusing mostly on GA these days.

Bremspropeller

12-05-2008, 06:17 AM

"Poland ordered a total of 48 F-16C/D Block 52 aircraft, thus becoming the first former WarPac member to operate the F-16 Fighting Falcon.

Equiped with JHMCS and Sniper ER pods, and armed with AIM-9X, AIM-120C, JSOW and JDAM, the Polish F-16s will be the most advanced in NATO.

That's a matter of itty-witty add-on stuff, such as the SNIPER pad.

I'm not quite sure if the Greeks have JHMCS or SNIPER, but avionicly, they are on par with the polish jets.

Just because you have the cooler pods, doesn't mean your a/c is better.
The wiring/ avionics is the same.

Aaron_GT

12-05-2008, 03:09 PM

The idea was building many light, less capable fighters that could be used as day-fighters and day fighter-bombers.

Same logic as the 1950s-designed Gnat from our friend Mr. Petter, although the supersonic versions never appeared in the end (would have been interesting, if short range).